Ben Levi: First, I thank you for your civil discourse in this matter. It beats insults!
I read the Pirush Hamishnayos very differently than you. The Rambam (in my view) discusses some “maamorei chazal”that make little sense as said. The first group-whom he calls simple-takes these as its face value ,as illogical it may be. That is wrong,he says, because “maamorei chazal” may have very deep, mystic explanations. The second group, realizing that the face value understandings makes no sense, refutes these “maamorei chazal” in their totality. These, the Rambam, calls fools and does point the finger at people with some outside education (philosophers, medical personnel). Note that he means that this group totally rejects this saying from chazal. The third group,very small in number, understands that there may be a deeper ,mysitc explanation for this “maamar”. I gave an example of such a “maamar”. If the chazal say something that may not square with reality, you must have a mystic explanation. (Shir Hashirim may be another example). However, when the chazal discuss medicine,astronomy or other natural science, they may be wrong in their assessment and, unless you find a mystic explanation for their words, you can question their parameters.
I have read some of Slifkin’s words and this is how I think ,his thinking is.